to think this woman's misguided to say the least?!

[Floopy21]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/article6101189.ece

Violethill - absolutely! My DH was originally not keen on a HB for DD2 as we had had 'complications' in hospital with DD1 but we went over it again and again with our midwife and it was pretty obvious that if I had been at home I would have been monitored more frequently and the midwife would have got me pushing earlier rather than insisting for 45mins that there was "no way I could be ready to push already" when infact I was and all that time DD's heartrate was going down. Ended up being rushed into theatre, given spinal block, an episiotomy and DD2 pulled out with forceps. Midwife told me after that she thought that if I'd had 10 more minutes I would have pushed her out myself.

Undoubtedly hospitals do save the lives of mothers and their babies, however because when it it felt that intervention is needed it can happen in quite a dramatic manner in hospital (the room fills with people, rushed along a corridor, DH thrown some scrubs, panic) you can be left thinking that if there had even been one more minute of delay that it would surely have been disaster. In fact at home midwives can deal with all manner of situations and will send you to hospital at the first sign of something going potentially going wrong.

A perfect example Bellebelle.

Must have been traumatic for you though - sorry you had to go through that.

longtall- you see, I don't actually believe there is much place in the printed media for polemic (outside the editorial, which is traditionally polemical). I believe that if you are printing something designed to be read by 100s of thousands of people, it should have a little more credibility than one person's opinion based on her own experiences. Unless we think that the media are no longer there to inform but to replicate conversation between friends over a pint or cup of tea, which is not something I'd part with 60p or £1.50 a day for frankly. I suppose my gripe is more about the lack of any kind balance that seems to pass for "journalism" these days.

Kiddiz - I think you are right that it would be very interesting to see what would happen in the community if HB rates went up significantly. Where I live there are no problems as large bank of midwives covering relatively small amount of HB's. I know 2 trained midwives who have retrained in new professions as although they loved the job they couldn't stand the pressure of working in our local hospital due to resources being so stretched. One said to me that she had had so many 'near misses' due to looking after so many labouring women that it was only a matter of time before she would have been responsible for a death and she couldn't take that risk. Very sad indeed.

'Undoubtedly hospitals do save the lives of mothers and their babies, however because when it it felt that intervention is needed it can happen in quite a dramatic manner in hospital (the room fills with people, rushed along a corridor, DH thrown some scrubs, panic) you can be left thinking that if there had even been one more minute of delay that it would surely have been disaster.'

That is so true Bellebelle!

My 3rd birth, the VBAC was exactly like that! I had a foetal scalp monitor, the heart rate was dipping, and suddenly the door was flung open, various people (god knows who!) rushed in, there was panicked talk of CSection...

Dire emergency? No! Just a very mismanaged second stage which resulted in my dc being born far too quickly, a nasty tear and lots of stitches. If I'd been in the unit where I first gave birth, the midwife would have calmly talked me through and got me in a good position (rather than flat on my back.) Hospitals are notorious for creating a drama and then making you feel it was all inevitable.

Bunny - thanks, it bothered me for a while after DD1's birth but seemed like everyone I met had similar experiences so wrote it off as 'normal'. Feel 'healed' by the extremely positive experience of DD2's birth though

When then you'll have no problem with it - as it's in the comment / editorial section. The news section is in the front, editorial in the back.

The whole point of debate is the skill at developing a reasoned argument. I would hate to live in a world where my own world view was not tested by reading or hearing other people who hold views different to my own.

Comment / editorial is only one section of newspapers. And while I'm not a feature writer myself, I would defend good feature writing to the hilt. And, for that matter, analysis of current events. Because I'm not so sure I'm right about everything that I don't want to hear why other people, who've looked into subjects I may not have done, have reached different views to my own. I absolutely maintain that is valuable - indeed vital. But it's not the same as news journalism.

Violet - I strongly believe that midwives are not given enough credit and they are often 'at war' with doctors to try and get women the birth they deserve. I learnt so much from my midwives at my second labour about how the labour process should be and I am one of those people who reads everything but still their knowledge and experience was invaluable.

The midwives I've had at my home births all said they much prefer them. Gives them much more job satisfaction and they feel they are able to get on with their work in partnership with the labouring mother rather than being hurried by high pressure hospital scheduling etc. None of them had ever had a home birth resulting in death of the baby (or mother) although had seen several in hospital. (I know - this relates to low number of home births and higher risk pregnancies being more likely to be hospital cases anyway but still suggests low risk, well managed home births are not the irresponsible trendy middle class fashion suggested in the article.) Still - this was an opinion piece - she wasn't uncovering Watergate.

I am now feeling terribly guilty that I never got around to dropping off any chocolates or anything to thank my midwives who were at the birth . Off to buy a something for them today...

Well, LongTallJosie, I'd agree with you, if her argument was 'reasoned'. But to acknowledge, in one paragraph: 'In other words, home delivery - if we may steal the expression back from the age of internet shopping - is as lacking in danger for the large majority as giving birth in hospital is.' and then to say in the next 'for the vast majority of us the only intelligent, progressive, logical place to give birth is within shouting distance of the benefits of 21st-century medicine' is just illogical!

Firstly it assumes that homebirths don't have access to 21st-century medicine and secondly it manages to simulateneously hold the position that homebirths are as safe as hospitals, but that hospitals are the only safe place to have children. Quite barking, sub-GCSE level debating skills.

Oh God, sorry about the 'simultaneously' -have a blind spot with that word.

I am so offended by the people posting comments along the lines of 'well, if you want to risk your baby's life by having a HB' , as though I have a cavalier attitude towards the baby I am currently gestating. Do these women honestly think that any mother-to-be thinks 'well, my baby's more likely to die at home, but I don't give a fuck, I'll have it at home anyway'? And do they honestly think that an NHS midwife and Doctor are going to approve a homebirth for me if it is in anyway more dangerous and likely to end in injury/death to myself or the baby? Given that they could be sued if this happened? Or are these same MW's and DR's not trained enough to be able to give correct advice?

Personally, I had 2 horrendous and badly-managed (due to limited resources and staff) hospital births. I am now living in a different area with an even more understaffed and dirty hospital. I am not taking away midwives from women who choose to give birth in hospital, my midwives will be from the group of Community Midwives who have all attended homebirths. They do not work in the hospital, so I am not selfishly grasping resources away from others.

And I am not smug. I think women should be able to give birth where they want. That is one of the benefits of living in a prosperous first world country. INFORMED CHOICE.

"The only "data" she refers to is the Dutch study on home births. And the Royal Coll of Obs and Gynae made the point on the BBC yesterday that the figures don't read across to the UK precisely because our hospital perinatal death figures are so much better than the Dutch hospital figures. So taking the home birth figures from the Dutch study, UK hospital births are proportionally safer."

I agree about the difficulty of extrapolating research from one country to another. But going on a mass of previous UK research, UK homebirths are as safe as UK hospital births for low risk mothers. It makes sense to me that you need to compare within a system, not across systems. My understanding is that Dutch women have much less prenatal screening that we do in the UK, which might account in part for the differences in birth outcomes.

"I agree it's a judgey article, but it's a free country, with a free press, in a paper which assumes an intelligent readership. And no, I don't work for it - but I find the attitude that only one point of view should ever be aired a little disturbing. Without reasoned debate, we're all much poorer."

The problem is that while the readership might be 'intelligent', they're not generally well informed on this subject. Myths and cultural neurosis about births abound, and when it comes to making decisions about birth choices, people are driven by this more than by the facts. Therefore articles like this can do a lot of damage. It's like allowing people to publish racist rants, or nonsense about breastfeeding. It's offensive and it's poor journalism.

'I am so offended by the people posting comments along the lines of 'well, if you want to risk your baby's life by having a HB' , as though I have a cavalier attitude towards the baby I am currently gestating.'

Hear hear grumpy.

You are right to be offended, because it is a hugely offensive thing to say or even think.

Try to remember though, that actually these women probably don't really believe it. Women can be terribly envious of those who manage a low tech birth - it's sad, because there is no logical reason for it, but it's true of some women. And therefore it's easier for them to try to steal the moral high ground rather than just accept that they made a different choice.

(Without wanting to go off at a tangent, it's not dissimilar to the WOHM/SAHM threads, where a SAHM will sometimes try to claim that SAHMs are acting in the interests of their child and that WOHM aren't, rather than just admitting that they have made one choice, and other people have made a different and equally valid one.)

Precisely, Standanddeliver. It's like publishing an opinion piece which starts 'whenever I see someone who regularly uses a seatbelt when she drives, I have to resist the urge to check if she has appropriate insurance cover. She almost always has.'

Gizmo - read that paragraph again.

"Here, in the largest study of its kind undertaken, researchers have revealed that women in the ?low-risk? category who gave birth at home were just as safe as those who did so in hospital. In other words, home delivery - if we may steal the expression back from the age of internet shopping - is as lacking in danger for the large majority as giving birth in hospital is."

That paragraph is talking about what the study found - not her own view. Then she goes on to give her own view. If you're going to insult her, make sure you've read it properly.

Standanddeliver - you certainly have a point that people may take an opinion piece and adopt that opinion as their own. But the same as a racist rant? Come on.

Incidently, I don't agree with her on every point. But I find sometimes on MN a peculiar attitude towards journalism, where any study - no matter how well researched, no matter how important (talking news rather than opinion pieces here) - is condemned outright, without assessing the body of fact behind it - and the journalist who wrote it - no matter how responsible he or she was - is personally condemned as irresponsible.

Of course irresponsible journalism exists. Irresponsible everything exists. But ask yourself this. If a study came out tomorrow with impeccable credentials, with a wide study base, with the best in the scientific industry giving their all to give the best possible results - when you read the article reporting those findings - would you think - my god, that's surprising, I may have to rethink what I thought? Or would you think, bloody irresponsible journalist, how dare s/he?

Grumpy - that's exactly what has got me annoyed. The implication from people that by choosing a home birth that you are choosing to take a risk - em no! This widely held opinion that no where can ever be as safe as a hospital is infuriating.

I got quite upset with DH when I was pregnant when he said "I totally support you having a homebirth. I would only ever be 100% happy in hospital though." In order for me to be happy with the decision I needed him to be totally certain as well. He completely came around in the end and apologised for upsetting me (he was totally free to have an opinion though). He thought that the HB was amazing and it has made us both realise how we are so conditioned to see hospitals as the only option. All has to do with introduction of NHS and government wanting to fill the wards back in the 50s but that's way too much to go into here!

Thank you violethill.

If, at any stage, my MW's feel I should go to hospital, I will be there like a shot. My concern is for my baby's well-being.

Oh and for the couple of people who mentioned it, I shall not be subjecting my kids to watching me give birth. We have discussed it. If I am in labour during waking hours, they will be closeted in DD1's room with popcorn and DVDs and the dog (unless we've taking them to my mum's but she's an hours drive away), which is what they requested. They are looking forward to it......no mum to tell them to keep the sound down! I have no desire to make them watch me FFS!

But comments about risking your babies life by having a home birth ar completely meaningless.
There is no difference in the level of risk between the two.
Its as meaningless as saying "well you can have your baby in a hospital if you want, but I couldnt take that risk with my baby"

For low risk women both options are equally safe (or equally dangerous depending on how you want to look at it)
It might seem counter-intuitive, but the evidence is that being in hospital doesnt make things safer.

LongTallJosie, I'm sure you're correct in your analysis, but here is the problem. She is comparing what the study found with her own opinion. This is totally 'apples and pears'. Studies are designed to try and understand the facts, the truth of a situation, an opinion is just one person's view.

If she wants to argue that those who homebirth are spoilt and complacent, she needs to be able to match one set of facts with another, not her opinion! Otherwise she doesn't deserve to have her opinion listened to, frankly.

Or am I missing the point of an opinion piece?

Gizmo -

Oh btw everyone - they're discussing dehydration and breastfeeding on Woman's Hour now.

(grabs hard hat and popcorn)

Oh, and by the way I do agee with you about the attitude towards reporting various studies. It can be a bit 'lalalala, I can't hear you' if findings don't reflect our own particular prejudices.

But in this case, the findings do! And it's not the first study to say so. So maybe this is a case of a journalist being slightly, ahem, sloppy, about their use of the science.

tbh i just smiled when i read the article
i'm one of those 'spoilt and complacent' women obv.
but hey am i bothered??!!
imo it's all about informed choices and the right to choose
i've had two home births and one hospital one
albeit in a tiny unit which sees about 30 births a year
i am very pro home births as i feel that birthing is a natural process
however i do not criticise other women who choose to give birth in hospital and obv.respect the views of professionals who deem it necessary for some women to have a hospital birth
yep.some people do see me as a bit of an oddbod i don't wear sandals as such as im usually barefoot actually
but yes.i kept the placentas and buried them in the garden with some now very beautiful trees to remind me of my very beautiful children

You are NBU, I could go on and on about how angry I am with what she's put and the way she's written it but I think it's all been said. Bloody hell, I thoroughly researched before I went ahead and if I wasn't so close to the hospital with major roads etc. then I may not have risked it but how dare people say I put my baby at risk by having him at home - these people haven't got a bloody clue what they're talking about!! I can tell you I was definitely put at risk more at hospital when I was left alone when screaming for help with ds1 and would never have a hospital birth again unless there was a reason it was actually safer. As it happens, my ds2 was born at home and i had meconium in the waters at the end plus when he came out the cord was TIGHTLY round his neck 3 times but they had all the equipment if necessary plus they dealt with it very quickly but calmly and they soon got him the right colour and breathing. Being at hospital would have been no different but more likely to have caused me to panic!!

Oh, and I don't wear sandals either and am certainly not spoilt!!